"NewsWrap"
for the week ending October 28, 2006
(As broadcast on "This Way Out" program #970, distributed 10-30-06)
[Written by Greg Gordon, with thanks to Graham Underhill, and Rex Wockner
with Bill Kelley]
Reported this week by Rick Watts and Kareem Ferguson
Lesbian and gay couples in the U.S. state of New Jersey celebrated a legal
victory of sorts this week -- close, but no "marriage" cigars, at least not
yet.
By a 4-to-3 vote, the state Supreme Court ruled on October 25th that same
gender couples are entitled to the same marriage rights and responsibilities as
heterosexual couples. But the majority ruling left it to the New Jersey
legislature to decide what to call those unions.
"Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and
privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial
relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose," the majority opinion said.
Citing the equal protection clause of the New Jersey Constitution, the
decision concluded that "committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms
the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil
marriage statutes." But, it continued, "The name to be given to the statutory
scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether
marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process." The
court ordered the legislature to "either amend the marriage statutes or enact
an appropriate statutory structure within 180 days of the date of this
decision."
The three dissenting justices said they did so because the ruling didn't go
far enough, and should have specified marriage as the legal remedy to
discrimination against lesbigay couples.
The New Jersey ruling parallels a 1999 high court verdict in Vermont that
led that state legislature to create civil unions -- which all but in name
provide same gender couples with equal legal marriage rights in the state.
"On the one hand, not a single justice said same-sex couples are unworthy of
equal protection," Steven Goldstein of New Jersey's Garden State Equality
wrote in an email to supporters. "On the other hand, we did not get marriage
equality." "Marriage is the only currency of commitment the real world
universally accepts," he continued. "Contraptions short of marriage, like civil unions
and domestic partnerships, do not provide [the same] protection[s]…TThus we do
not have a win yet." And, he wrote, "it's now up to us to make it happen."
He later told a post-ruling rally that he would fight for full marriage
equality until there is "blood on these knuckles."
On the campaign trail for his embattled Republican Party, U.S. President
George W. Bush predictably condemned the New Jersey justices. "We had another
activist court issue a ruling that raises doubts about the institution of
marriage," he said. Echoing previous comments, he called marriage "a sacred
institution that is critical to the health of our society and the wellbeing of
families, and it must be defended."
Both conservative anti-queer religious groups and many in the Republican
Party are privately celebrating the New Jersey high court ruling. They're hoping
it will mobilize the same voter base in the upcoming mid-term elections that
swarmed voting booths in 2004 to pass several state constitutional amendments
outlawing legal recognition of same-gender couples -- and re-elect George W.
Bush and the GOP-controlled Congress.
New Jersey Democratic Assemblyman Reed Gusciora is one of several lawmakers
who've promised to sponsor a bill giving same-gender couples the right to
marry, with no separate name or lessened privileges. Full marriage equality
"merely answers the call of the Supreme Court," he said. But many Republican
legislators denounced the ruling, and one vowed to try to impeach the justices --
an unlikely event. Republican Assemblyman Guy Gregg promised to introduce a
bill to amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union between a
man and a woman. He admitted it had little chance of passage, but claimed the
public, which must vote on proposed constitutional amendments approved by the
legislature, would support it.
Democratic State Senator Ray Lesniak told reporters that lawmakers will
support the equal rights of same-gender couples ordered by the Court. But he
predicted the Democratic-controlled legislature would stop short of applying the
term "marriage" to lesbian and gay unions.
More than 40 U.S. states have laws defining marriage as a union between a man
and a woman. Nearly 20 have written the definition into their constitutions,
and voters in 8 more states have same-gender marriage ban amendments on their
November 7th ballots.
Meanwhile, The Washington state Supreme Court is standing by its ruling
denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry.
Same-gender couples had asked the justices to reconsider their July 5-to-4
decision upholding Washington's Defense of Marriage Act. The majority ruling
validated that 1998 state law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples in order
to "promote and encourage stable families."
The court's refusal to review that ruling, signed by Chief Justice Gerry
Alexander this week, is the final word in the case. Equality activists can't
"make a federal case out of it" because no federal legal issues were involved.
The high court rarely reconsiders its rulings, and few observers expected it to
revisit a decision that took nearly 18 months to announce.
Washington marriage equality supporters said the denial was particularly
disheartening because it came on the same day New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled.
As Lisa Stone, director of the Northwest Women's Law Center, which represented
plaintiffs in the case, told reporters, "Just as the New Jersey court
recognized the discrimination that gays and lesbians face and said they're entitled to
be treated the same, our court essentially declined to do that."
Massachusetts is, of course, the only U.S. state where full legal marriage is
open to gay and lesbian couples. The U.S. federal government refuses to
recognize legal same-gender marriages, domestic partnerships, or civil unions
anywhere in the country.
South Africa's Human Rights Commission has criticized the Mbeki
government's Civil Union Bill, which would create a separate institution essentially
identical to marriage for same-gender couples. The bill was introduced in
response to a 2005 Constitutional Court ruling that gave legislators until December
1st of this year to end the Marriage Act's discrimination against lesbigay
couples. The Commission called the Civil Union Bill unconstitutional,
discriminatory and stigmatizing. It said the government should instead amend the
Marriage Act to allow same-gender marriage.
If lawmakers don't take action by December 1st, the nation's high court said
the Marriage Act will automatically be interpreted to include same-gender
couples. But the Court has remained silent about whether or not civil unions will
satisfy its ruling.
Queer activists staged a march and picket against the Civil Union Bill in
Pretoria in mid-October. "Civil partnerships are not equivalent to marriage,"
Alex Ringelman, one of the organizers, told the "Independent" newspaper. "They
entrench institutional segregation in our law and a separate, inferior status
for gay relationships."
Canada's "Globe and Mail" newspaper reports that groups still fighting
marriage equality in the country now say they're no longer pushing for an
immediate return to the traditional definition of one man and one woman. Facing
almost certain defeat in a coming parliamentary vote to reopen the contentious
issue, spokespeople from primarily conservative Christian groups said at a press
conference this week that they'd be happy if politicians would simply study the
impact of marriage by gay and lesbian couples on Canadian society. But
officials representing 4 different religious denominations said at a separate news
conference that repealing the law would restrict their freedom to perform
same-gender ceremonies.
The 2005 law creating marriage equality in Canada both opens legal marriage
to same-gender couples and protects "the rights of religious communities to
live their faith in the ways they see appropriate vis-Ã -vis equal marriage."
It would take a major shift to convince MPs that prolonging the marriage
discussion with further "study" is a good idea. Most analysts say that lawmakers
want to finally end the divisive debate and move on.
And some Canadian postal workers are wondering how much hate qualifies as
"hate mail." Several Vancouver, British Columbia mail carriers refused this
week to deliver a pamphlet described by Canadian Union of Postal Workers
spokesperson Ken Mooney as "really offensive" and "hate mail." Some postal workers
refused to even touch them.
Produced by the Fundamentalist Baptist Mission of Waterford, Ontario, the
tract rails against "The Plague of this 21st Century: The Consequences of the sin
of Homosexuality (AIDS)." But Canada Post spokesperson Colleen Frick told the
"Toronto Star" that "The posties don't have the right to refuse to deliver
the mail. The contract between the corporation and the union requires them to
deliver mail the corporation deems acceptable. And this item was deemed such."
But finally, Rechtskomitee LAMBDA, or RKL, Austria's major LGBT civil
rights organization, has celebrated its 15th anniversary in style. Over 500 people
packed the chambers of the lower house of Parliament in early October to
honor the group, in what the European branch of ILGA -- the International Lesbian
and Gay Association -- called a first-ever global event.
The President of Austria sent video greetings, as did the head of Austria's
police forces. The Minister of Justice and the president of Austria's Judges
Association were among the in-person speakers, moderated by Constitutional
Court Justice Lilian Hofmeister. Openly-gay Justice Edwin Cameron of South
Africa's Supreme Court of Appeals delivered the keynote speech, while "out"
Australia High Court Justice Michael Kirby said in a congratulatory video that he
regretted not being able to attend in person. A festive reception followed, held
in the stunning Parthenon-like main hall of the Parliament building.
Can any other queer advocacy group in the world top that?